The distinctive feature of the epoch in which Sismondi wrote was the rapid development of exchange (monetary economy—in modern terminology), which manifested itself particularly acutely after the destruction of the remnants of feudalism by the French Revolution. Sismondi, without hesitation, condemned this development and strengthening of exchange, attacked "fatal competition," calling upon "the government to protect the population from the consequences of competition" (ch. VIII, 1. VII) and so forth. "Rapid exchanges corrupt the good morals of the people. Constant concern for profitable sales cannot occur without temptations to demand exorbitantly and to deceive, and the more difficult it is to exist for one who lives by constant exchanges, the more he is subjected to the temptation to resort to fraud" (I, 169). What naiveté was required to attack monetary economy in the way our Populists attack it! "…Commercial wealth is only second in importance in the economic order; and territorial wealth (territoriale—land wealth), which provides the means of subsistence, ought to increase first. This whole numerous class, living by trade, ought to receive a portion of the products of the earth only when these products exist; it (this class) ought to increase only insofar as these products also increase" (I, 322–323). Has Mr. N—ov made even a step forward from this patriarchal romantic, pouring out for whole pages complaints about how the growth of trade and industry outpaces the development of agriculture? These complaints of a romantic and Populist bear witness only to a complete lack of understanding of capitalist economy. Can there exist such capitalism in which the development of trade and industry does not outpace agriculture? After all, the growth of capitalism is the growth of commodity economy, that is, the social division of labor, which separates from agriculture one after another form of processing raw materials, originally connected with the extraction of raw materials, their processing and consumption in one natural economy. Therefore, everywhere and always capitalism means faster development of trade and industry compared with agriculture, faster growth of the commercial-industrial population, greater weight and significance of trade and industry in the general structure of social economy [102]. It cannot be otherwise. And Mr. N—ov, repeating such complaints, proves once again and yet again that in his economic views he has not gone beyond superficial, sentimental romanticism. "This unreasonable spirit of enterprise (esprit d'entreprise), this excess of every kind of trade, which causes such a mass of bankruptcies in America, owes its existence, without any doubt, to the increase in the number of banks and that ease with which deceptive credit takes the place of real property (fortune réelle)" (II, 111), and so on without end. In the name of what then did Sismondi attack monetary economy (and capitalism)? What did he oppose to it? Small independent production, the natural economy of peasants in the village, handicraft in the city. Here is how he speaks of the first in the chapter "On Patriarchal Rural Economy" (ch. III, 1. III, "De l'exploitation patriarcale"—on patriarchal exploitation of land. Book 3 treats "territorial," or land wealth):

"The first proprietors of land were themselves ploughmen; they performed all field work by the labor of their children and their servants. No social organization [103] guarantees greater happiness and greater virtues for the most numerous class of the nation, greater abundance (opulence) for all, greater stability for the social order… In countries where the farmer is proprietor (où le fermier est propriétaire) and where the products belong wholly (sans partage) to those very people who performed all the work—that is, in countries whose rural economy we call patriarchal—we see at every step traces of the farmer's love for the house in which he lives, for the land which he tends… Labor itself is a pleasure for him… In the happy countries where agriculture is patriarchal, the particular nature of each field is studied, and this knowledge passes from father to son… Large-scale farming, directed by wealthier people, may perhaps rise above prejudices and routine. But knowledge (l'intelligence, that is, knowledge of agriculture) will not reach the man who works himself, and will be applied worse… Patriarchal economy improves the morals and character of this so numerous part of the nation on which all agricultural work falls. Property creates habits of order and thrift, constant contentment destroys the taste for gluttony (gourmandise) and drunkenness… Entering into exchange almost only with nature, he (the farmer) has fewer reasons than any other industrial worker to distrust people and to employ against them the weapon of dishonesty" (I, 165–170). "The first farmers were simple ploughmen; they performed by their own hands the greater part of agricultural work; they proportioned their enterprises to the strength of their families… They ceased not to be peasants: they themselves held the plough (tiennent eux-mêmes les cornes de leur charrue); they themselves tended the cattle both in field and in stable; they lived in the open air, becoming accustomed to constant labor and modest food, which create sturdy citizens and brave soldiers [104]. They almost never employed day laborers for joint work, but only servants (des domestiques), always chosen from among their equals, with whom they dealt as equals, ate at the same table, drank the same wine, wore the same clothes. Thus, the farmers with their servants constituted one class of peasants, animated by the same sentiments, sharing the same pleasures, subject to the same influences, bound to the fatherland by the same ties" (I, 221).

There you have the notorious "popular production"! And let no one say that Sismondi has no understanding of the necessity to unite producers: he speaks directly (see below) that "he desires association exactly as much (as Fourier, Owen, Thompson, Muiron) does" (II, 365). Let no one say that he stands precisely for property: on the contrary, the center of gravity for him is small-scale economy (cf. II, 355), not small property. It is understandable that this idealization of small peasant economy takes a different form under other historical and social conditions. But both romanticism and Populism elevate precisely small peasant economy to apotheosis—this is beyond doubt.

In exactly the same way Sismondi idealizes primitive handicraft and the guilds.

"The village shoemaker, who is at the same time merchant, manufacturer, and worker, will not make a single pair of shoes without receiving an order" (II, 262), whereas capitalist manufacture, not knowing demand, may suffer collapse. "Undoubtedly, both theoretically and factually, that the institution of guilds (corps de métier) hindered and ought to have hindered the formation of surplus population. In exactly the same way, it is undoubtedly true that such population exists at the present time and that it is a necessary result of the contemporary order" (I, 431). Many such citations could be adduced, but we postpone analysis of Sismondi's practical recipes for later. Here let us limit ourselves to what has been adduced, in order to grasp Sismondi's point of view. The foregoing arguments can be summarized thus: 1) monetary economy is condemned for destroying the secure position of small producers and their mutual rapprochement (whether in the form of the craftsman's proximity to the consumer or the farmer's proximity to farmers like himself); 2) small production is extolled for ensuring the independence of the producer and eliminating the contradictions of capitalism.

Let us note that these two ideas constitute the essential heritage of Populism [105], and let us attempt to grasp their content.

The critique of monetary economy by romantics and Populists amounts to establishing the individualism [106] and antagonism (competition) it produces, as well as the insecurity of the producer and the instability [107] of social economy.

First, concerning "individualism." Usually one opposes the union of peasants of a given commune or craftsmen (or cottage workers) of a given craft—to capitalism, which destroys these bonds, replacing them with competition. This argument repeats the typical error of romanticism, namely: drawing a conclusion from the contradictions of capitalism to its denial of a higher form of sociality. Does not capitalism, destroying medieval communal, guild, artel, and similar bonds, put others in their place? Is not commodity economy itself already a bond between producers, a bond established by the market? [108] The antagonistic character of this bond, full of fluctuations and contradictions, does not give one the right to deny its existence. And we know that it is precisely the development of contradictions that increasingly reveals the force of this bond, compelling all separate elements and classes of society to strive for union, and moreover for a union not within the narrow limits of one commune or one district, but for the union of all representatives of a given class throughout the nation and even in different states. Only a romantic from his reactionary point of view can deny the existence of these bonds and their deeper significance, founded not on common interests within one commune or district, but on community of roles in the national economy, and not on territorial, professional, religious, and similar interests. And if such reasoning earned Sismondi, writing at a time when these new bonds generated by capitalism were still in their infancy, the name romantic, then our Populists all the more deserve such an assessment, for now only completely blind people can deny the enormous significance of such bonds.

As for insecurity, instability, and so forth, it is all the same old song we spoke of regarding foreign markets. In such attacks is revealed the romantic, condemning with timidity precisely what scientific theory values most highly in capitalism: the striving for development inherent in it, the irresistible striving forward, the impossibility of stopping or reproducing economic processes in unchanged former dimensions. Only a utopian, inventing fantastic plans to extend medieval unions (like the commune) to the whole of society, can ignore the fact that precisely this "instability" of capitalism is a tremendous progressive factor, accelerating social development, drawing ever larger masses of the population into the whirlpool of social life, forcing them to think about its order, forcing them themselves to "forge their happiness."

The phrases of Mr. N—ov about the "instability" of capitalist economy, about the disproportionate development of exchange, about the disruption of equilibrium between industry and agriculture, between production and consumption, about the abnormality of crises, and so forth, bear the most indisputable testimony that he still stands entirely from the point of view of romanticism. Therefore, the critique of European romanticism applies to his theory word for word. Here is the proof:

"Let us listen to old Boisguilbert:

'The price of commodities,' he says, 'ought always to be proportional, for only such mutual agreement makes it possible for them at each moment to be reproduced again… Since wealth is nothing other than this constant exchange between man and man, between enterprise and enterprise, it would be a terrible error to seek the cause of poverty in anything other than the disruption of this exchange, which is caused by deviations from proportional prices.'

Let us also listen to one of the most recent [109] economists:

'The great law which must be applied to production is the law of proportion, which alone is capable of maintaining the constancy of value… The equivalent must be guaranteed… All nations in various epochs have attempted by means of numerous commercial regulations and restrictions to realize this law of proportionality, even to a certain degree. But the egoism inherent in human nature brought it about that all this system of regulation was overthrown. Proportional production is the realization of true socio-economic science' (W. Atkinson. 'Principles of political economy', London, 1840, p. 170 and 195) [110].

Fuit Troja! [111] This correct proportion between supply and demand, which is beginning once more to become the subject of such abundant wishes, has long ceased to exist. It has outlived itself; it was possible only at those times when the means of production were limited, when exchange occurred within extremely narrow boundaries. With the emergence of large-scale industry this correct proportion necessarily (mußte) had to disappear, and production necessarily, by the laws of nature, had to pass through a constant successive sequence of prosperity and decline, crisis, stagnation, new prosperity, and so on.

Those who, like Sismondi, wish to return to correct proportionality of production while at the same time preserving the modern foundations of society, are reactionaries, because they, to be consistent, would have to strive for the restoration of other conditions of industry of former times.

What maintained production in correct, or almost correct, proportions? Demand, which governed supply, preceded it; production followed step by step behind consumption. Large-scale industry, being by the very character of the instruments it employs compelled to produce constantly in ever larger dimensions, cannot wait for demand. Production goes ahead of demand, supply forcibly seizes demand.

In modern society, in industry based on individual exchange, the anarchy of production, being the source of so many evils, is at the same time the cause of progress.

Therefore, one of two things: either to wish for correct proportions of past centuries with the means of production of our time—and this means being both a reactionary and a utopian at the same time.

Or to wish for progress without anarchy—and then it is necessary to renounce individual exchange in order to preserve productive forces" ("Das Elend der Philosophie", p. 46–48) {56}.

The last words refer to Proudhon, against whom the author polemicizes, characterizing consequently the difference between his point of view and both the views of Sismondi and the outlook of Proudhon. Mr. N—ov, of course, would not approach in all his views either one or the other [112]. But grasp the content of this passage. What constitutes the fundamental proposition of the cited author, his basic idea, placing him in irreconcilable contradiction with his predecessors? Undoubtedly, in that he places the question of capitalism's instability (which all three of these writers establish) on a historical foundation and recognizes this instability as a progressive factor. In other words: he recognizes, first, the given capitalist development, proceeding through disproportions, crises, and so forth, as necessary development, saying that the very character of the means of production (machines) itself causes an unlimited striving for the expansion of production and the constant anticipation of demand by supply. Second, he recognizes in this given development elements of progress, consisting in the development of productive forces, in the socialization of labor throughout the whole of society, in the increase in the mobility and consciousness of the population, and so forth. These two points exhaust his difference from Sismondi and Proudhon, who agree with him in pointing out "instability" and the contradictions it generates and in their sincere desire to eliminate these contradictions. The failure to understand that this "instability" is a necessary feature of any capitalism and commodity economy in general leads them to utopianism. The failure to understand the elements of progress inherent in this instability makes their theories reactionary [113].

And now we propose to the Populist gentlemen to answer the question: does Mr. N—ov share the views of scientific theory on the two points indicated? does he recognize instability as a property of the given order and the given development? does he recognize the elements of progress in this instability? Everyone knows that he does not, that Mr. N—ov, on the contrary, declares this "instability" of capitalism to be simply abnormality, a deviation, and so forth, and considers it decline, regression (cf. above: "deprives of stability"), idealizing that very economic stagnation (remember "age-old foundations," "principles hallowed by centuries," and so forth) whose destruction constitutes the historical merit of "unstable" capitalism. It is clear therefore that we were entirely right in numbering him among the romantics, and that no "quotations" and "references" on his part will alter the character of his own arguments.

We shall stop somewhat below once more on this "instability" (concerning the hostile attitude of romanticism and Populism toward the decrease in the agricultural population at the expense of the industrial), and now let us cite one passage from "Critique of Certain Propositions of Political Economy," devoted to analyzing sentimental attacks on monetary economy.

"These specific social roles (namely: the roles of seller and buyer) do not spring from human individuality in general, but from exchange relations between people producing their products in the form of commodities. The relations existing between buyer and seller are so little individual that both enter into them only insofar as the individual character of their labor is negated, namely insofar as it, as non-individual labor, becomes money. Therefore, it is just as meaningless to regard these economically-bourgeois roles of buyer and seller as eternal social forms of human individualism, as it is unjust to lament these roles as the cause of the destruction of this individualism.

How deeply even a completely superficial form of antagonism, manifested in buying and selling, strikes good people is shown by the following extract from the book of Isaac Pereire: 'Leçons sur l'industrie et les finances'. Paris. 1832 [114]. The fact that this same Isaac, as inventor and dictator of the 'Crédit mobilier', acquired the sad fame of a Paris stock exchange wolf shows what is contained in the named book alongside sentimental critique of economy. Mr. Pereire, at that time an apostle of Saint-Simon, says: 'Because individuals are isolated, separated from one another both in production and in consumption, there exists between them an exchange of the products of their production. From the necessity of exchange flows the necessity of determining the relative value of objects. The ideas of value and exchange are thus closely linked together, and in their actual form both express individualism and antagonism… One can determine the value of products only because there exists buying and selling, in other words, antagonism between different members of society. One has to concern oneself with price, value only where buying and selling occur, in a word, where each individual must struggle to obtain the objects necessary to maintain his existence'" (cited work, p. 68) {57}.

The question arises: in what does Pereire's sentimentality consist? He speaks only of individualism, antagonism, struggle, inherent in capitalism, he speaks what our Populists speak in various ways, and moreover says what would seem to be the truth, for "individualism, antagonism, and struggle" indeed constitute a necessary characteristic of exchange, commodity economy. The sentimentality consists in that this Saint-Simonist, carried away by condemning the contradictions of capitalism, overlooks behind these contradictions the fact that exchange too expresses a particular form of social economy, that it consequently not only divides (this is true only with respect to medieval unions, which capitalism destroys), but also unites people, forcing them to enter into relations with one another through the medium of the market [115]. It is precisely this superficiality of understanding, caused by the zeal to "demolish" capitalism (from a utopian perspective), that gave the cited author reason to call Pereire's critique sentimental.

But what to us is Pereire, long-forgotten apostle of long-forgotten Saint-Simonism? Would it not be better to take the latest "apostle" of Populism?

"Production… has lost its popular character and assumed an individual, capitalist character" (Mr. N—ov, "Essays," p. 321–322).

See how this costumed romantic reasons: "popular production became individual." And since the author wishes to understand "popular production" as the commune {58}, he thereby points to the decline of the social character of production, to a narrowing of the social form of production.

Is this so? The "commune" gave (if it gave; incidentally, we are prepared to make any concessions to the author) organization to production only in one separate commune, isolated from every other commune. The social character of production embraced only the members of one commune [116]. Capitalism, on the other hand, creates the social character of production throughout the whole state. "Individualism" consists in the destruction of social bonds, but these are destroyed by the market, replacing them with bonds between masses of individuals, bound by neither commune, nor estate, nor profession, nor narrow district of labor, and so forth. Because the bond created by capitalism manifests itself in the form of contradictions and antagonism, our romantic does not wish to see this bond (although the commune, as an organization of production, never existed without other forms of contradictions and antagonism inherent in old modes of production). The utopian point of view transforms his critique of capitalism too into sentimental critique.